I am not a physicist, but how is anybody supposed to prove the OP right or wrong.

For starters, some of the factual propositions the OP states can be proved or disproved by experimental data. I am guessing most of us here do not
have access to particle colliders, radio telescopes, or any of the other tools physicists use. Even if someone did have access to these tools and
could make a series of observations proving or disproving the OP's contentions, nobody on here would believe it.

Second, some of the factual propositions the OP states may be able to be proved or disproved by reason or mathematics. Unfortunately I do not think
anybody here (including myself) would have the sophistication to understand a mathematical argument.

Third, the OP points out one heavenly body is moving towards us, so the idea of an expanding universe must be false. Is it possible that although
most stars and galaxies are moving away from each other, a small number may be moving towards each other.

I agree with the OP. All physics are tge,ory anyway none have been entirely proven. one only needs to look at the letters between Velikovski and
Einstein to be aware that Einstein knew the science world required a model and as long as it fit roughly then it would be accepted. There is an awful
lot if doubt whether the photon exists as well as the points made regard the gravity and relativity theories are flawed.

The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it. www.thunderbolts.info...
Cheers

Originally posted by Herebychoice
The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it.

You mean there are educational facilities
teaching that the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion but by some mysterious electric current instead?

Which school teaches that? Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which teaches based on channeling of a 35,000 year-old Lemurian warrior entity called
Ramtha? That I could believe, but if you're claiming any accredited institutions are teaching the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion as EU
proponents say, you'll have to back up your claim.

Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby. But now I'm about to introduce a new model. So I am wondering how strong really are some
sides.

Ready? Okay. I'll form the opposition to root concepts (particle existence, observation of dark energy) - just to see how strong they are.

Allow me to preface by saying that I am not a theoretical physicist however I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

I agree that Physics in its many disciplines is exciting to learn, however all set to turn the standard model on its head are you?

I don't know whether you are serious or sarcastic??

Challenging 100 years cumulative work of the greatest minds whose work has been supported by entire nations with billions of dollars of funding is a
tall order.

This is a common phenomena on alternative internet media, the less ones education on the topic the higher the likelihood that they will come to
believe they have overturned relativity (or the standard model.)

The questions you are asking make it clear that you haven't developed the necessarily academic foundation needed to grasp the concepts you are
preparing to overturn and rewrite.

First, you are making the same error as many of the other "free thinkers" on ATS, confusing scientific theory with philosophical theory. Philosophy
only requires somebody willing to say "what if", scientific theory requires support by empirical evidence and is actually more akin to what most
people consider fact.

You need to familiarize yourself with the function of p-values and sigma in the scientific method (you may want to Google the terms so you can at
least have an idea), while you are at it you will find a tremendous weight of mathematical and observational evidence supporting both Einstein's
relativity as well as the particle zoo.

Among the bulk of supporting evidence that has collected over the years, the indications of the Higgs Boson observed at CERN last year went a long way
to support the standard model as correct once and for all.

Sorry, as mentioned previously, the scientific method doesn't work that way.

You need to provide evidence and show work,that can be independently corroborated which challenges the empirical facts supporting the existence of the
quark.

By your definition, I have a theory of my own...

My car isn't powered by internal combustion, the force to drive the pistons is actually a form of zero point energy drawing the power to do the work
from the quantum foam which is stimulated by the atomisation of the air fuel mixture at approximately 14:1.

I can prove this because diesel engines don't require spark plugs.

The only reason I put gas in the tank at all is to provide a a matrix for the up quarks to adhere to, bubble yum works nearly as well..

Prove me wrong.

Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

You have your work cut out, all six flavors of Quark predicted by the standard model have been directly observed in particle accelerator collisions
for years now at exactly the mass predicted.

Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards
one another and even collide.

Serious or sarcastic?

If serious, you need to go back and hit the books, this is high school stuff. Metric expansion of space and doppler red shifting electromagnetic
radiation is inarguable. On very localized scales you have gravitationally bound galaxies which do merge and collide ( our own M31 is heading towards
us at a relative velocity of some 100Km/sec) however on any meaningful cosmic scale everything is travelling away from everything else

Ironically, your "theory" could be considered in agreement with mainstream cosmology.The red shift is not caused by the relative velocity of an object
traveling away, or Doppler shift, as is often demonstrated with a train whistle.

The cosmological red shift is caused by the metric expansion of space itself stretching the photons as they propagate.

In effect, you are correct. Redshift is caused by Photons interacting with spacetime.

I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third
party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. "

You have to understand relativity before you can question its predictions (which for a hundred years has survived all challenges) As others have
pointed out, time dilation has been conclusively proven for 50+
years, the GPS constellation being one of the easiest examples to point to.

Partly for the same reason you can never accelerate to light speed. The faster you go, the more you weigh. The more you weigh, the more force it takes
to accelerate and, the stronger your gravitational influence. More gravity, the slower your time passes as observed by a second party in a different
inertial reference frame.

Originally posted by swan001
Prove me wrong.

okay....

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an
astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners.

They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval
Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the
predictions of special and general relativity.

Originally posted by swan001
I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right
one.
Let's start the debate!

First off, would you provide a mechanism by which one would expect a particle accelerator to detect virtual particles? Tell the truth, you were
absent in physics class on particle accelerator day, weren't you?

Actually, just read this bit. If they are real, maybe it already has found a hint (but probably not in the manner you were thinking...

)

At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak
interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be
explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass.

When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the
value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

I agree with the OP. All physics are tge,ory anyway none have been entirely proven. one only needs to look at the letters between Velikovski and
Einstein to be aware that Einstein knew the science world required a model and as long as it fit roughly then it would be accepted. There is an awful
lot if doubt whether the photon exists as well as the points made regard the gravity and relativity theories are flawed.

The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it. www.thunderbolts.info...
Cheers

Honestly, in my limited understanding the electric universe theory is on par with the hollow earth. As far as I know, the only time relativity comes
up lacking is in predicting what happens in a singularity and to my knowledge the electric universe theory certainly doesn't offer any viable
alternative explanation.

The link posted isn't working, can you provide a source to show a legitimate University offering electric universe theory as a hard science
course?

Academia aside, Wikipedia doesn't even have an EU entry.

I believe your assertions regarding doubts on the existence of photons is incorrect as well but my guess is both the photon and flawed relativity
claims are rooted in EU dogma.

Just so you know, photons were first observed in the early 1920's, the guy who first observed them won a Nobel Prize. Photons are the force carrier
for the electromagnetic force, have no rest mass and exhibit wave–particle duality. Nobody except hack pseudo science questions their existence.

Einsteins relativity has been proven correct time and again, it might not be the end all but it is a part of the natural world just like Newtons
classical mechanics. Relativity came along and explained what was happening in the odd instances where Newtonian physics failed, such as the
precession of the planet Mercury.

Someday string theory or some such thing will play out to modify relativity where it fails, at the quantum scale, but to say relativity is flawed is
just plain wrong.

You have merely stated a hypothesis, not a theory. You are treating the known theories as you would a hypothesis which is incorrect in function and
form.

Now, as far as "proving you wrong", it is merely a hypothesis, you would have to have evidence to support your hypothesis and that evidence would be
examined. You have no evidence nor do you address any evidence of the underlying hypothesis for the theory you think you are in disagreement with. I
say think because it is clear you have no knowledge of the actual theory, only of a translation of the theory into layman's terms.

This is often an issue when those who are uneducated in Physics try to comprehend a theory based on their terms. Since you don't understand the
workings of the theories, the history behind them or even the processes that were gone through in order to support them, you have no grounds upon
which to claim they are false.

In order to know truth, you must first have knowledge. That knowledge is used to gain evidence to support or refute what is being tested. First gain
the knowledge, then use that knowledge to gather evidence to either support or refute, then present it so others can weigh in on the subject.

Just throwing out an idea and saying "prove me wrong" essentially does the job for you. You are proven wrong because you have no evidence to support
what you are saying. It's essentially saying "Please teach me Physics on a message board with as few words as possible so I can understand it
without doing any of the work required". That's not going to happen. Not here, not anywhere.

You are correct sir, star for you, I was just worried if I threw out too much too quick it woukdnt stick properly, as some find time dilation in the
presence of mass, and from velocity, to be difficult to grasp.

If I would have know a heavy hitter such as yourself was coming I would have been more thorough.

I would like to hear what you have to say about a couple of his other assertions. As this one was my one of my favorite subjects, thus I have done a
lot of research into it over the years.

I am less capable as far as quantum theory goes, so I am not as knowledgeable about this subject, and wouod really like to know the actual answer.

I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third
party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.

Sorry, I always thought that time didn't "slow down" just that it would be a sort of a bubble around the person going super fast...anyways, didn't
they kind of prove this with atomic clocks?Link

Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby.

You're asking people to prove you wrong when you're not actually providing any evidence.. just theories and ideas.. the burden of proof is on you.. I
can say that mars has a core of 100% grade A milk ... prove me wrong! .. you won't be able to.. that's a silly approach nobody takes seriously.

Science is all about theorizing and then developing tests to prove those theories true.. it's not about making up a theory and then asking everyone
else to prove you wrong.

I know, quarks don't really exist. It was a name that the nerds of my time came up with to try to identify the kids that did irrational things that
we couldn't figure out. After all, others called us nerds or worse just ignored us because we intimidated them with our knowledge. After that most
got renamed geeks. It's strange that the name quark was created about the same time I was in school dealing with quarky kids, that was a long time
ago. Which actually created the other is what I wonder.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.

Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more
than glorious theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Like so many non-scientists, you seem very confused by the way science uses the word 'theory'. It doesn't mean wild ass guess as it's used on ATS.
It's an explanation that fits the observed facts, that is tested by experimentation, that is at least somewhat falsifiable.

It's not "Wow, I think we're on an atom on a fingernail of some other guy in another dimension, oh WOW" like most ATSers seem to believe.

so how did they test the "big bang" theory? you'd think all the matter/stars/objects would explode outward with unbelievable(like the theory) force
and never come together yet galaxies are colliding. and not all scientists agree with the big bang theory.

and how did they prove the sun is powered by conversion of hydrogen to helium? did they send a probe into the sun? where does all the "hydrogen"
come from?

what sort of experiment did they perform to come up with the hypothesis (and thats all it is) known as a black hole?

lastly i did not comprehend your last word and sentence. ie; "somewhat falsifiable". did you mean feasible?

Looks to me like you copy pasted your "opinion" sentence by sentence from other websites.

So it does at least appear to me as though you neither have an opinion on your own, nor do you grasp basic concepts of anything you write about. I
even go that far and claim that, if someone does provide you with an argument against your claims, you will simply google for an answer.

I could be wrong, but having read quite some of your posts, I doubt I am.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.